>be philosopher
>want to share my unique worldview with the world
>fill the world in with my wisdom
>write my important, world changing text in pseudo-poetic terms, dealing in abstract concepts so people centuries after my death are still arguing over what I meant
>do this another ten times, rehashing the same abstract arguments and going back and forth with other philosophers who write in similar pseudo-poetic statments that I interpret to have tried to refute my pseudo-poetic word salad
>get worshipped for my big brain
Do you guys seriously read this shit? What's the point? How does anyone understand this gibberish?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Look, if you dont understand or dont like something, just ignore it. There are people who find philosophy enjoyable and interesting. We don't need same low quality threads every day.
>Just ignore the fact that people enjoy drivel
No
>it's drivel because I'm too stupid and brown to understand it
consider suicide
Philosophy is for the weak and undecided. You need another man to explain to you how to see the world.
Shut the frick up, moron.
>Philosophy is for the weak and undecided. You need another man to explain to you how to see the world.
Good idea. I discard your explanation of the world then.
Let me rephrase: to write or understand any philosophical work of worth, the first step is that you have to be a white man.
Dozens of good brown and yellow philosophers and theologians. Not a single woman thoughbeit.
>Dozens of good brown and yellow philosophers and theologians.
Nope, none.
>be (You)
>everything is ego
>can't into why knowledge and understanding is a humanity wide continuous process
>why can't everyone be like me
>fin
Thanks for sharing your blogpost with us, anon. Very cool.
I used to like philosophy until gradually, the more I read it, the more I realized that these guys are deeply deeply mentally ill and should not be supported in any way.
Kant wrote a massive 700 page book to essentially just say "Dude, we can't know everything." It's so profoundly midwit, the arrogance and audacity to feel he has the authority to claim what someone can and can't know. By stages, you realize all philosophers have unwarranted God complexes like this and just stop caring about them.
On a deeper level though, you also see the pattern that all philosophers trick you into thinking they are unbiased "searchers of the truth," when in actuality they already figured out what the conclusions actually are but write their book in order to "prove" the thesis they already proved in their own mind. So if Kant says there are things we cannot know, this is not something that is proved organically over the course of the book, but rather he already came to that conclusion, and retroactively wrote the book around that conclusion. It's a very manipulative way of influencing people to get brainwashed with certain ideas, to have it appear that they are infallible or scientific, when in actuality they are anything but. And sadly, people still fall for this scam. At the end of the day, they all just care about social engineering, trying to have their subjective view become the mainstream dogmatic view. And don't be fooled by the philosophers who write about metaphysics or epistemology, they too are secretly at the end of the day just political philosophers.
The only good philosopher is Nietzsche, and the reason why he is the only good philosopher is because he was the first one to call out the philosophy for what it actually is, a scam.
You think we can know everything?
>the guy who I think agrees with me is the only real philosopher
Lot to unpack here. All of it is cringe.
Yes, we can absolutely know everything. The fact that anyone would even argue otherwise is the most midwit thought imaginable.
>durrr I can't conceive of it so it must not be knowable
Low IQ shit. It's like how apes think, and having this mentality will ultimately hold us back.
Okay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Conceive.
What is the point you are trying to make here? This is just something that hasn't been solved yet, but will. No matter how complex a problem is, a problem is still a problem. And problems by necessity have solutions.
You're claiming absolute knowledge. Demonstrate. What's the problem? Where is this confidence coming from? What makes you think humans have the capacity to know everything?
Because the solution of problems is in the very nature of problems itself. It's in the definition. If a problem didn't have a possible or potential solution, it wouldn't be a problem. It would already be solved. But its mere potentiality of possibly being able to be solved means by necessity it must have a solution. A problem not having a solution is illogical.
Checked, it's not a problem for the universe. It's a problem for our species. What makes you think we have the capacity to actualize an objective solution and not a mere cope as you think the philosophers (minds spending lifetimes of thinking) arrived at?
I mean, there is no guarantee of that. It could be like Descartes' demon and we could be getting tricked. But I don't think the universe or God or whatever you want to call it is malevolent and would want to trick us. It wants us to reach consciousness, and wants its own creations to acknowledge it. It is counterintuitive for us to be "tricked." This is again just another example of humans applying our own biological motives and biases and applying them to a God or a creator or the universe. They assume that God would have petty human characteristics like this, and this is very narrow-minded thinking.
Kek, this is the guy calling people above his paygrade mentally ill midwits. Pottery. Many such cases. etc.
OK, explain how I'm wrong. Further, why would you even want me to be wrong? What do you gain from it? Isn't it far more uplifting to believe me?
To demonstrate a statement wrong it has to mean something in the first place.
>If a problem didn't have a possible or potential solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
You're not saying anything, just confusing yourself with semantics you made up on the spot.
>Given accepted axioms of math prove that 2+2 equals 5.
This is a problem with no solution.
This is the dumbest shit ever. We don't know anything. We have models we made up that have apparent predictive power. Not a single piece of absolute knowledge about anything except the things we made up. You can only make an objectively true statement within a given context and you can never model the context fully since any model will itself rest on some context / axioms.
You don't understand anything about anything, neither philosophy nor Nietzsche and being deliberately moronic will not give you power over the world.
this is just mental gymnastics to justify extreme skeptcism. You are then implying we can never acquire through knowledge, we can just make assumptions and systems to interpret the said unnacquirable knowlodge. But that interpretation of ours could be exactly what we call knowledge, and how could you prove there's a knowledge we can never fully comprehend?
>extreme skeptcism
Everything must start with a leap of faith, this is not about scepticism in any way. This is about absolute basics like the fact that your maps in your mind are not the territories they map. Words are not the meaning they reference. My finger is not the moon. Being stuck in this mode where you actually think you have access to absolute truth is completely deranged in a way that will lead you to self sabotage. It's the worst kind of religious dogma that's not based on reason and can be easily used to control you.
>and how could you prove there's a knowledge we can never fully comprehend?
Intuitively it's obvious because I understand how maps work. I can't prove anything to you except within a framework you accept. Given some common established assumptions I can prove things based on that. So if the assumptions are true then logically the conclusion is also true. The proof only exists within the given context not as some floating objective truth independent from anything else.
>You can only make an objectively true statement within a given context and you can never model the context fully since any model will itself rest on some context / axioms not derived from this context.
This is proof in informal language that there's always knowledge outside any idea you can conceive of. This is basically saying the same thing that Gödel's incompleteness says formally.
I will be honest with you: those are some pointless ramblings
You didn't provide proof, you just expanded your previous post. I am not directly disagreeing with you: in fact I was already familiar with this kind of mindset. But at the same time, all of this is no different from plain solipsism or epistemological nihilism. And, by the parameter set by this logic, we can't even be sure that knowledge is truly unnobtainable in its true form without admiting we have knowledge of this impossibility.
Of course, I agree with you about axioms and the need to start from some position, but if something cannot be described, as "the true form of knowledge", it might as well be non-existant. For example, we can't conceive by imagination other forms of life from other planets without assuming resembling characteristcs from forms of life from Earth, like cells, organs, etc., and we could expend all the eternity imagining how could it be: be it would be all pointless because we could never be sure without properly visiting other planets
>l of this is no different from plain solipsism or epistemological nihilism
It's like you don't understand what any words mean and just grab them at random. Separating the map from the territory is not radical skepticism, solipsism or nihilism. This is at least as old as Aristotle.
>we have knowledge of this impossibility
I just spoonfed you this shit twice. The exact same problem applies to any statement we make. The proof rests on assumptions like everything else but that's what we call "proof" and that's what "knowledge" usually means. I "know" 1+1=2, but that's in a specific context where we already allow certain things to be considered true. We don't have access to anything that tells us a statement is true or false except logic and logical statements rest on axioms. A statement can only be objectively true or false by depending on another statement.
>For example
That's not an example of anything relevant. We can imagine all kinds of weird shit and predict what's possible given a set of rules like the rules of physics or logic. The eye of Jupiter is a huge sustainable system that incidentally will compute data like all processes that obey logic. Within that emergent computer life could evolve that doesn't know about our physical world and has no access to it.
Given the rules of physics the dot of light in the night sky is a sun with a specific age and distance which can be derived from the colour. We've never been there but we know a lot about it assuming the laws of physics as we understand them are close to correct. When people test this kind of knowledge it works remarkably well and with remarkable precision, enough to do things like land on the moon.
>It's like you don't understand what any words mean and just grab them at random.
you have a reading comprehension of an infant.
Also, once again you didn't catch the point of my post and regurgitated what you previously have said.
Because of this, I'm certain now that you, like most of others that study philosophy, just do so to feel intelligent and act superior.
>you have a reading comprehension of an infant.
This has nothing to do with my reading comprehension you're just absolutely fricking moronic and can't string together anything approaching a coherent thought.
>radical skepticism, solipsism, nihilism
These are the words you used to describe my position. It suggests you don't understand a word I said or what any of those words mean.
Do you want to grab more random words you don't understand on even a surface level to dismiss the starting point of all productive thought?
If you don't understand that your map is flawed you can't improve it. Whatever part of the map you treat as absolute objective truth has no chance of being updated. This is probably why you like the idea that you have some direct divine access to truth, so you never have to think.
>These are the words you used to describe my position.
no, I said your position is no different from the words I said, meaning your position is not any of those words, but resembles them ( resemblance, in this case, in pratical approaches to reality)
*by pratical approaches
>I said your position is no different
Which means equal. It's not similar either.
I can't possibly know for sure if you have your own internal experience. I have no access to any such information, if I do please point it out to me. If I assume that this means you actually don't have an internal experience I would be a solipsist. If I act or argue based on that as a premise I'm appealing to solipsism. My arguments would only seem reasonable to other solipsist and "other solipsists" is a ridiculous phrase.
I explicitly separated the intuition from the proof and also explained how proof works. You don't seem to get any of it, your replies don't relate to anything I say.
I used the term solipsism incorrecly before, I admit, but I cant quite grasp what you see wrong about the other words, skepticism and epistemological nihilism.
>I explicitly separated the intuition from the proof and also explained how proof works. You don't seem to get any of it, your replies don't relate to anything I say
I wouldnt say what you have said before can be considered proof, also in your last post you said:
>This is probably why you like the idea that you have some direct divine access to truth
which is basically just an incoherent assumption about me
>epistemological nihilism
I don't understand why every little detail needs to be spoonfed. If I say the map is not the territory that doesn't mean I'm saying there is no territory.
>scepticism
Understanding what can be called knowledge, what can be proven logically etc has nothing to do with what level of scepticism you want to apply to a claim. Understanding how logic and information works is not about scepticism.
>I wouldnt say what you have said before can be considered proof
That's exactly what it is, I also explained what the concept of proof means. You apparently mean something completely different than what the words you're using mean. You're not talking about knowledge or proof, maybe something like if we should trust the senses or something, nobody knows.
>incoherent assumption
It's the only claim you actually made. It's the entire point I'm arguing against. Are you saying the dumbest shit imaginable on purpose?
>I don't understand why every little detail needs to be spoonfed. If I say the map is not the territory that doesn't mean I'm saying there is no territory.
that has nothing to do with epistemological nihilism.
>Understanding what can be called knowledge, what can be proven logically etc has nothing to do with what level of scepticism you want to apply to a claim. Understanding how logic and information works is not about scepticism.
no, you dumbfrick, this is how "logic and information works" only your shit degree that is called philosophy. Also, the skepticism come before, when affected by schizoid thoughts, the philosopher clown starts doubting even if knowledge is true obtainable (which has to do with epistemological nihilism) and do mental gymnastics that are unfalsifiable.
>That's exactly what it is, I also explained what the concept of proof means
no, you didnt provide proof, you just kept explaining that proof can be obtained once it has an established frame with established axioms to justify the proof. You didn't provide a single evidence that your position is right, but keep just making arguments. If you are not aware, everything in current world is proved by scientific method, not useless ramblings and fallacies like in the "good" philosophy of yore.
>It's the only claim you actually made. It's the entire point I'm arguing against. Are you saying the dumbest shit imaginable on purpose?
never made such claim. Are you aware I'm not the dumbfrick from
?
>that has nothing to do with epistemological nihilism.
correcting myself: it has to do, but not all aspects of epistemological nihilism, including the impossibility in achieving a truth. Yes, I know your arguments is about how truth can be relative to each frame set before, but you said before we don't know anything and we do not have a single piece of absolute knowledge. And that is what I'm on about: the fact that we can interpret something in various ways doens't mean it is not absolute as knowledge, just that our methods are not absolute. Yes, we can have dissonating methods - some that even contradict others - but what I ask is how could you prove that, in fact, perchance one of those interpretations of truth couldn't be the truth itself in it's absolute form: that is factually how the world works and etc.
also every single aspect of your arguments are just superficial assumptions upon me. I dont even disagree with your point, moron, yet you respond like I was.
The only thing you've been questionated about is how could you differentiate your position from the words I said and what benefit would you even gain by accepting this position.
It is almost like you just accepted the arguments said by someone else, because when I asked you to prove your point you just repeated the same things and said it was "intuitive"
Hume blew you the frick out 300 years ago.
Where do I start with Nietzsche? His followers seem to be pretty cool and I want to get into it. Other lurkers feel free to suggest me his best introduction book aswell.
>This is the average look of the /chud/cel you're arguing with on IQfy
Really gets the brain activated.
>source: your crusty, undilated front hole
YWNBAW
cope chuddie
>I don't understand it, therfore it's trash.
Im so tired of midwit narcissists like you.
You're missing the historical context. Atheists have been pushing the intellectual hype since their meme of enlightenment, hence why according to them all the poor should go to college
atheists have no critical thinking so they think if they dont understand something, it means it's deep and true, and they just parrot the dumb down version of the thing over and over (think of Kant and Hegel).
This was all academics before 2012, but in 2012 occupywall street happened and it's the first time that socialists knew they have a better market to tap than the proletariat after the commies killed themselves (and thus leaving socialists standing like morons, since according to socialists, socialism was a bridge from the classical liberal republic by bourgeois to communism).
The market is the young yuppies educated, not in maths, but in Bullshit studies, full of money, and completely fricking lost in life, doing moronic master like psychology, who will end up in a meaningless bureaucratic job and of course those ppl will be mostly roasties. So it's the perfect recipe
-women have no critical thinking and spend their lives spreading their legs, 10 years of casual sex, then they end up pregnant, so 10 years of raising some kids, then they get bored playing the helicopter mom and they go back to the wiener carousel. This makes women desperate to feel virtuous, and they will always embrace what the ruling & entertaining class is telling them (no matter what kind of society they live in)
-the intellectuals in the bourgeois republic want to secure their republic, so the poor who vote really need to think there is an alternative to classical liberalism, and that's jut new liberalism, the 2020 variant is wokeism, but the proletariat is just fricked over since the communists themselves were unmasked as just another society full of control freak atheist bureaucrats who have frick all idea on what to do, and they heavily despise any criticism
-there is also the israeli trend of pushing for self depreciation on whatever atheists consumed, any angle of the way of life after ww2 will be shitted on
-socialists mixed that with the infatuation of the atheists for (fake) introspection
atheists fricking love ''meta'' things, like in their cartoons (atheists love to watch cartoons) so like a cartoon talking directly to the audience knowing he is a cartoon (stuff like rick an morty and so on)
There you have it, the desperate need of the atheists for public posturing, applying especially to the roasties, and huge control of the ruling class over entertainment (ie Hollywood and the academia).
The fantasy of the atheist is to mix, in their republic, 3 things
-the bureaucracy
-the education
-the entertainment
so for instance when you watch the products of Hollywood you get an education, when you get an education you become a better citizen, and when you vote you push for more education and more of Hollywood. In their minds all those 3 fields are the same
/// He was agonizing over the moral issues involved /// The team returned disconsolate from three losses /// Reading it, you can't help pitying the hapless little girl trapped in the crossfire of a bellicose and bitter split /// There are patches of mildew on the walls /// Sand spits are an ubiquitous feature of sandy coasts with prevailing oblique wave incidence and associated strong littoral drift /// He had been a strict father but was indulgent toward his grandchildren /// Later they discussed the topic more fulsomely /// This illustrates the common error of considering the basolateral amygdala as isomorphic with fear /// Within a staple, fibres were separated by removal of adhesions and twists, then stretched along ruler to straighten crimps /// Had he but known the agony of spirit his daughter was experiencing he would have returned posthaste to Philadelphia /// Alongside the cards, this kit includes forceps, a Petri dish, dropper, tesh tube, blank slides, prepared slides, lens paper, and more /// He has warned some of his more gung ho generals about the consequences of an invasion /// The 1910 midget auto racing season will bow in at Fresno Sunday when speed aces from all sections of California will vie for fame and money on the Airport speedway track /// This had many drawbacks including the added pressure on peewee-aged players (12-year-olds) /// The road system was so complicated that we had to stop to get our bearings several times /// The studio chiefs wanted a marquee name in the lead role /// Our industry's conversion to new methods has been very dilatory /// Society will blink at rude behavior if the person being rude is powerful enough /// He was careful to let drop nothing at which she might take umbrage /// I wanted to show scenes from the film during my presentation, so I cued them up ahead of time /// Her party still genuflects to her, and a core within it reflexively venerates her ///
You understand by learning the specific concepts of individual philosophers that seem interesting to you, then you look at the thinkers that influenced them and what their concepts were, then you start to look at broader ideas connected to these concepts and evaluate different perspectives and after some time you create your own concepts to sum up the parallels you have discovered between concepts, then you start coming up with new stuff and you create more concepts and finally you get people like you, complaining and not understanding the concepts because they lack either background knowledge, time or the intelligence.
my important, world changing text in pseudo-poetic terms
"Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.
Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.
Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.
He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.
In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak, but for that route thou must have long legs. Proverbs should be peaks, and those spoken to should be big and tall."
>>want to share my unique worldview with the world
"My brother, when thou hast a virtue, and it is thine own virtue, thou hast it in common with no one.
To be sure, thou wouldst call it by name and caress it; thou wouldst pull its ears and amuse thyself with it.
And lo! Then hast thou its name in common with the people, and hast become one of the people and the herd with thy virtue!
Better for thee to say: “Ineffable is it, and nameless, that which is pain and sweetness to my soul, and also the hunger of my bowels.”
Let thy virtue be too high for the familiarity of names, and if thou must speak of it, be not ashamed to stammer about it.
Thus speak and stammer: “That is my good, that do I love, thus doth it please me entirely, thus only do I desire the good.
Not as the law of a God do I desire it, not as a human law or a human need do I desire it; it is not to be a guidepost for me to superearths and paradises.
An earthly virtue is it which I love: little prudence is therein, and the least everyday wisdom.
But that bird built its nest beside me: therefore, I love and cherish it—now sitteth it beside me on its golden eggs.”
Thus shouldst thou stammer, and praise thy virtue."
>Do you guys seriously read this shit? What's the point?
"Similes, are all names of good and evil; they do not speak out, they only hint. A fool who seeketh knowledge from them!
Give heed, my brethren, to every hour when your spirit would speak in similes: there is the origin of your virtue.
Elevated is then your body, and raised up; with its delight, enraptureth it the spirit; so that it becometh creator, and valuer, and lover, and everything’s benefactor."
The eternal midwit